Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: Lester Zick (lesterDELzick_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 03/18/05
- Next message: Puppet_Sock: "Re: Relatives Are Defined by Absolutes"
- Previous message: Robert Grace: "Einstein was Precisely Backward, Deliberately"
- In reply to: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 19:37:30 GMT
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 13:10:52 -0500, Tony Orlow (aeo6)
<aeo6@cornell.edu> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>Lester Zick said:
>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 11:16:11 -0500, Tony Orlow (aeo6)
>> <aeo6@cornell.edu> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>>
>> >Lester Zick said:
>> >> On 18 Mar 2005 05:08:46 -0800, stevendaryl3016@yahoo.com (Daryl
>> >> McCullough) in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Lester Zick says...
>> >> >
>> >> >>stevendaryl3016@yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>>"Crank" is probably a better word than "crackpot". "Crackpot"
>> >> >>>implies that one has crazy ideas, but most of the usenet cranks
>> >> >>>don't have any new ideas at all---they are just cranky, in the
>> >> >>>sense of getting up too early without their morning coffee.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>So, Daryl, where exactly do you lie on this spectrum?
>> >> >
>> >> >I rarely have new ideas, so I don't (usually) count as a crackpot.
>> >> >In a new thread, I always start out cheerful, but become
>> >> >more cranky as the thread progresses.
>> >>
>> >> So you remain within a carefully circumscribed establishment? How do
>> >> you know whether the establishment itself is well founded? Or don't
>> >> you care? I don't see new ideas as a threat to science one way or the
>> >> other.
>> >>
>> >> Regards - Lester
>> >>
>> >I personally think it's important to explore different areas of interest and
>> >try to find connections. That's what most creativity is, I think, finding
>> >connections between the things we've discovered largely by accident or
>> >serendipity. It's the lines that are most interesting, not the dots.
>>
>> I agree, Tony. It's the regression that fascinates me. My whole
>> objective is finding and demonstrating the universal basis of
>> regression. It's one of my secondary contentions that sciences like
>> set theory and behaviorism are inherently particular in nature and
>> only regress things terminologically and not tautologically.
>>
>> Regards - Lester
>>
>Oh, I think set theory could be shored up to deal with infinities better, but
>it does deal with a particular aspect of things that seems to be less connected
>than it might be to other things. It really seems to me that the relative sizes
>of infinite sets is intimately connected to the sums of infinite series and to
>the functions that describe the relationships between the sets, and that
>relative infinities are closely tied with integrals, which we know are closely
>tied with sums of infinite series. I do think L'Hospital's Rule is going to
>play a part in making the definitions rigorous.
>
>As far as behaviorism goes, to me it's an appoach that is more of a retreat
>from the attempt to understand mind in its own terms, and an attempt to treat
>everything materialistically. I don't see any merit in the black-box, forget-
>the-mechanics approach to psychology. Has it ever really produced any usable
>information? If we applied that approach to the study of computer algorithms,
>how long would it take us to figure out any complex application? Could we ever
>fully map out all possible inputs and outputs and their relations?
Well, Tony, I realize the connection between modern math and
behaviorism appears tenuous. I only draw it to emphasize that what
we're dealing with in both cases is something behaviorists call
naturalized epistemology and what Bob and other empiricists call
empiricism. The behaviorists just have less of a universal legacy to
fall back on. So their brand of psychological empiricism look absurd
on the face of it. Modern math just has a much greater intellectual
legacy of universal mathematical knowledge that makes its end product
look familiar But it's really the same empiricist epistemology drawn
in different terms and applied to different arenas of knowledge.
Regards - Lester
- Next message: Puppet_Sock: "Re: Relatives Are Defined by Absolutes"
- Previous message: Robert Grace: "Einstein was Precisely Backward, Deliberately"
- In reply to: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
